How to break up the two party system?

[*PhilHos*]

Please note, the title is a question.

I think it's safe to say that most, if not all, of us on here are fed up of our 2 party political system here in America. So, the question then becomes, how do we change that? How would YOU change that? What is the best way to fix the system? What is the most realistic/plausible way to fix the system?

I believe that due to the popularity of Trump and, during the primaries, Bernie Sanders, that more and more people are fed up with the system as it stands. Now might be the best time to begin to facilitate that change. But, how do we go about doing it?

Ideas? Thoughts? Suggestions?

Honestly, I'm willing to start and/or be a part of a movement if we can come to some consensus on the best way to move forward.

[Au165]

If you want an honest answer...you can't. The only way you will get a true viable "third" option is if there is some sort of massive scandal. I am talking across all parties that gets exposed with heavy media coverage. If this election where you had two of the worst options ever doesn't do it then nothing will.

[hollodero]

(10-27-2016, 11:33 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Please note, the title is a question.

I think it's safe to say that most, if not all, of us on here are fed up of our 2 party political system here in America. So, the question then becomes, how do we change that? How would YOU change that? What is the best way to fix the system? What is the most realistic/plausible way to fix the system?

I believe that due to the popularity of Trump and, during the primaries, Bernie Sanders, that more and more people are fed up with the system as it stands. Now might be the best time to begin to facilitate that change. But, how do we go about doing it?

Ideas? Thoughts? Suggestions?

Honestly, I'm willing to start and/or be a part of a movement if we can come to some consensus on the best way to move forward.

Well, of course it's the majority voting system. 

An obvious solution would be a switch to a parliamentary system - which would also mean no direct election of a president. A majority in the Congress would then elect one. (With the positive side effect that a president has a majority in the House, no "lame ducks".) Senate would have to accept a minor role, probably.

And the obvious way to go is to find - and vote for - major party candidates that indeed have this point on their agenda. A vote for a third party, on the other hand, does nothing.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-27-2016, 11:37 AM)Au165 Wrote: If you want an honest answer...you can't. The only way you will get a true viable "third" option is if there is some sort of massive scandal. I am talking across all parties that gets exposed with heavy media coverage. If this election where you had two of the worst options ever doesn't do it then nothing will.

Who says it has to be a 3rd party? Maybe we just do away with all parties? Open up elections to whomever applies? Or maybe have a multiple party system wherein to be a "party" in politics, one has to file paperwork and have a set number of members and then we just allow as many parties as we want?

I'm just spitballing, but I don't think just having a 3rd party is going to do anything except just have 3 groups of politicians and supporters who irrationally hate each other.

[Belsnickel]

Duverger's Law shows us that the number of political parties you will have is the number of winners in an election, plus one. Currently, our system is that of a plurality. If we were to, for instance, get rid of Congressional districts and assign representatives based on a proportional election system is would foster the potential for additional parties. If we also included ranked elections for executive positions and those of fixed number, like the Senate, it would also provide more viability for additional parties as the proportional elections for representatives would allow other parties to grow and the ranked voting would allow for votes to be cast for those parties where that vote is not essentially a vote for the opposite.

We will never get rid of parties. There are pros and cons to them, but they are a natural part of the political process and they will always exist. I'm in favor of parties that are more like in other countries where they actually focus on public policy rather than just elections, so reform, but they will always exist.

[Benton]

(10-27-2016, 11:42 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Who says it has to be a 3rd party? Maybe we just do away with all parties? Open up elections to whomever applies? Or maybe have a multiple party system wherein to be a "party" in politics, one has to file paperwork and have a set number of members and then we just allow as many parties as we want?

I'm just spitballing, but I don't think just having a 3rd party is going to do anything except just have 3 groups of politicians and supporters who irrationally hate each other.

That comes down to money.

You can run for president. Nothing is stopping you. But to get your name out, to get placed on the ballot in every state, to have any realistic chance, you'd have to been insanely wealthy. The party system allows anyone to have support of  the collective, and their donations (which naturally leads to back scratching and corruption).


As far as the OP, talk to people. That's how you make a change. Support candidates instead of parties. I'm amazed daily at how many intelligent people I talk to have no idea that there's usually more than two options for an office. But they don't know because they're told there's only two options.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-27-2016, 12:05 PM)Benton Wrote: As far as the OP, talk to people. That's how you make a change. Support candidates instead of parties. I'm amazed daily at how many intelligent people I talk to have no idea that there's usually more than two options for an office. But they don't know because they're told there's only two options.

How about this: make it illegal to talk about another candidate that you're running against in any way, shape, or form? Would this force candidates to simply talk about themselves and their policies?

For example, Hillary Trump says that Donald Clinton is a sexist pig. Hillary'd be punished by this law. Bernie Cruz says that Ted Sanders' tax plan would increase the debt. Bernie'd be punished by this law.

I know it would never happen and I even doubt it would work as intended, but I'm only 41 and I'm already so fed up with our political system that I want to just go to sleep and never wake up again.

[Au165]

(10-27-2016, 12:28 PM)PhilHos Wrote: How about this: make it illegal to talk about another candidate that you're running against in any way, shape, or form? Would this force candidates to simply talk about themselves and their policies?

For example, Hillary Trump says that Donald Clinton is a sexist pig. Hillary'd be punished by this law. Bernie Cruz says that Ted Sanders' tax plan would increase the debt. Bernie'd be punished by this law.

I know it would never happen and I even doubt it would work as intended, but I'm only 41 and I'm already so fed up with our political system that I want to just go to sleep and never wake up again.

Yes, let's limit their right to freedom of speech. Frustration is shared, but as I told you there is nothing changing anytime soon. The parties are too big. Being helpless sucks, but that is where we are at for now. I mean think about it, the only way election process gets changed is through the people in the parties you want to strip of power.

[BmorePat87]

We've essentially had only two parties since the conception of the Constitution. We had a 10 year or so period during the 1820's where essentially everyone was a Democratic-Republican, but that's an outlier.

Like Matt explained, it comes with the territory of how we vote. It has been ingrained in our political fabric. The first step is gerrymandering legislation. Probably an amendment to require neutral or bipartisan boards to oversee the creation of all districts. Remove the extremes from both sides. The parties aren't really the issue, it's who they send.

[Rotobeast]

(10-27-2016, 12:28 PM)PhilHos Wrote: How about this: make it illegal to talk about another candidate that you're running against in any way, shape, or form? Would this force candidates to simply talk about themselves and their policies?

For example, Hillary Trump says that Donald Clinton is a sexist pig. Hillary'd be punished by this law. Bernie Cruz says that Ted Sanders' tax plan would increase the debt. Bernie'd be punished by this law.

I know it would never happen and I even doubt it would work as intended, but I'm only 41 and I'm already so fed up with our political system that I want to just go to sleep and never wake up again.

Phil, I'm with ya brother.
I'd like to eliminate parties altogether, but it's just not possible.
I have come to the conclusion that change will have to be from the inside out, like many criticized religions.
For me (personally) to have an effect, I'm choosing to become active within the Libertarian Party.
It has it's downside, but I feel it's young enough that we can shape it.
I have been speaking with leaders of the LP, in Columbus.
I've voiced my concern over some of the hardline stances they have, which turn some people off.
I'm asking that these be viewed more as ideals and go with a "Libertarian-Lite" approach.
That approach would mainly focus on being a mediator between the existing major parties, in an attempt to conserve the tax-payers money.
So far, they are rather pleased with our conversations.
I am also going to focus on the expansion of the LP into the more rural areas of the state, after the election.
If this sounds good to you, please feel free to inquire about doing the same in your area.
I also have a few people in northern Ohio that I am coordinating with.

I hope that helps ease your mind a little.
I'm just a pee-on, but we could collect enough pee to form a tidal wave.

[fredtoast]

It is all about the $$$$$$$.

It is impossible to complete with either of the top 2 parties because they control an overwhelmong majority of the oney.

So we need publicly funded elections.

[treee]

Ranked voting (or the alternate vote). If people didn't feel like they were throwing away their vote by voting 3rd party, then we'd get a lot of challengers to the two party system.

[fredtoast]

(10-27-2016, 05:08 PM)treee Wrote: Ranked voting (or the alternate vote). If people didn't feel like they were throwing away their vote by voting 3rd party, then we'd get a lot of challengers to the two party system.

Something like this would make a real big difference.

Have all representatives run "at large" then take the top two or three finishers instead of just one each from a lot of small gerrymandered districts.

[Belsnickel]

(10-27-2016, 06:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Something like this would make a real big difference.

Have all representatives run "at large" then take the top two or three finishers instead of just one each from a lot of small gerrymandered districts.

That's called proportional voting, it's what I mentioned earlier.

I was in Norfolk at a conference until this afternoon, so I couldn't get into specifics on what I personally would like to see:

1. Increase the number in the House. Currently our number is set at 435 representatives for a total population of about 325 million. Let's compare that with Germany (I know, I like to look to Germany for these things) where they have a lower house number of 630 for a population of roughly 82 million. When you see this comparison, does it make you feel like you are represented? I think there needs to be an amendment made to tie the number of total representatives to the population and the number is increased based upon the census when they are apportioned to states. Right now a Representative has an average of 750,000 constituents. That is voting members, I should also say. Even lowering it down to 300-500,000 would lead to better representation.

2. Get rid of congressional districts. This eliminates gerrymandering. Representatives are voted at-large at the state level by the proportional system. Say we fix a number that essentially doubles the number of representatives. Maine would be apportioned 4 Reps. Now, with 4 Reps you can say that a Rep only need 25% of the vote to take the seat. With ranked voting you would be able to make this happen with people choosing who they want to represent them. It works better when parties actually stand for something, which is what I would like to see happen, but I doubt it will. But, with increased representation, keeping districts would at least be improved. Still, ranked voting for the positions would help facilitate more options.

3. Ranked voting in Senate and Executive races. Just plain and simple. It needs to happen.

4. I waffle on whether or not I would like to see us move to a parliamentary system where the Executive is less divorced from the Legislative. The POTUS is not intended to derive its power from the entire electorate, or rather wasn't. By making it so that the people elect the POTUS, we have removed some of that separation of powers that was set up in the Constitution. I'm not sure what we should really do about it, though. And thus the waffling. If we are going to continue to have the POTUS elected by the people, though, the electoral college needs to go away.

[hollodero]

(10-27-2016, 07:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That's called proportional voting, it's what I mentioned earlier.

I was in Norfolk at a conference until this afternoon, so I couldn't get into specifics on what I personally would like to see:

1. Increase the number in the House. Currently our number is set at 435 representatives for a total population of about 325 million. Let's compare that with Germany (I know, I like to look to Germany for these things) where they have a lower house number of 630 for a population of roughly 82 million. When you see this comparison, does it make you feel like you are represented? I think there needs to be an amendment made to tie the number of total representatives to the population and the number is increased based upon the census when they are apportioned to states. Right now a Representative has an average of 750,000 constituents. That is voting members, I should also say. Even lowering it down to 300-500,000 would lead to better representation.

2. Get rid of congressional districts. This eliminates gerrymandering. Representatives are voted at-large at the state level by the proportional system. Say we fix a number that essentially doubles the number of representatives. Maine would be apportioned 4 Reps. Now, with 4 Reps you can say that a Rep only need 25% of the vote to take the seat. With ranked voting you would be able to make this happen with people choosing who they want to represent them. It works better when parties actually stand for something, which is what I would like to see happen, but I doubt it will. But, with increased representation, keeping districts would at least be improved. Still, ranked voting for the positions would help facilitate more options.

3. Ranked voting in Senate and Executive races. Just plain and simple. It needs to happen.

4. I waffle on whether or not I would like to see us move to a parliamentary system where the Executive is less divorced from the Legislative. The POTUS is not intended to derive its power from the entire electorate, or rather wasn't. By making it so that the people elect the POTUS, we have removed some of that separation of powers that was set up in the Constitution. I'm not sure what we should really do about it, though. And thus the waffling. If we are going to continue to have the POTUS elected by the people, though, the electoral college needs to go away.

 Pretty similar to what I suggest in too many posts, therefore: excellent suggestion.

Just in addition to point 2 - you might want to find a solution for odd votes. That's where a "national list" would come into play - excessive votes (for examle one party gets 35% in your Maine example - therefore a direct vote for the state candidate at 25% + some excessive votes) from all the states would count for this national list, from which some additional Congressmen are selected, proportional to the incoming votes. The party's candidate for president would (probably) sit on top of this list.
That way, you encourage some kind of party affiliation (which is good for practical reasons - a Congress full of independends might turn chaotic and hard to negotiate with) and ensure that your vote always counts for the party you intended to vote for.

As for point 4 - why vote for the president directly. That comes with a lot of disadvantages. The election is focused on single persons, which opens the door for all kind of dirty attacks, possible corruption, fundraising etc. - and the risk of a "lame duck" blocked by a different Congress majority. I'd say it makes more sense to vote for Congress and let Congress determine the next president.

[fredtoast]

(10-28-2016, 08:28 AM)hollodero Wrote: As for point 4 - why vote for the president directly. That comes with a lot of disadvantages. The election is focused on single persons, which opens the door for all kind of dirty attacks, possible corruption, fundraising etc. - and the risk of a "lame duck" blocked by a different Congress majority. I'd say it makes more sense to vote for Congress and let Congress determine the next president.

Our government is based on "checks and balances" between the three branches of government.  The legislative branch (congress), the executive branch (president), and the judicial (supreme court) all have specific powers that keep the other two in check.

Letting congress select the president would weaken the check against their power from the executive branch.

[GMDino]

Do we have to break them up?

The two party system still managed to work for decades.

How about we get back to discussing things and trying to read agreements vs saying "i'm right" "you're wrong" and fighting all the time?

[hollodero]

(10-28-2016, 10:55 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Our government is based on "checks and balances" between the three branches of government.  The legislative branch (congress), the executive branch (president), and the judicial (supreme court) all have specific powers that keep the other two in check.

Letting congress select the president would weaken the check against their power from the executive branch.

OK, acknowledged that.

I just wonder to which extent this is more of a theoretical argument, though. The two parties - and their individual factionists - are influencing all three branches anyway. It is blue vs. red on all levels. President "checking" Congress is far less important than the Blue vs. Red factor. The check is weakened (or risen up to a gridlock if the colours don't match) anyway is what I mean.
The way I see it, your specific system has a flaw. It would depend on party affiliations that are pretty loose. When these affiliations are tightened, one party can under the right circumstances block the whole system. (I read you might not even get a Court Justice elected when Hillary wins; for the GOP will simply keep refusing to do so.) That is, rationally speaking, problematic.

A president selected by Congress can still act as head of the executive branch (because why not) - just like a Justice selected by congress and president can still act as a Supreme Court Justice.
Well, guess that's a point - Congress and president select Judges. To be consistent, you would have to hold nationwide elections for Supreme Court Justices just like for Presidents.

[Belsnickel]

(10-28-2016, 10:55 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Our government is based on "checks and balances" between the three branches of government.  The legislative branch (congress), the executive branch (president), and the judicial (supreme court) all have specific powers that keep the other two in check.

Letting congress select the president would weaken the check against their power from the executive branch.

You are correct, it does weaken that check. But, that weakening becomes irrelevant if we foster an environment for more political parties. It becomes difficult for the ruling party to be able to push their agenda. Not to mention you have the upper chamber which would still have that checking power as well.

[Belsnickel]

(10-28-2016, 08:28 AM)hollodero Wrote:  Pretty similar to what I suggest in too many posts, therefore: excellent suggestion.

Just in addition to point 2 - you might want to find a solution for odd votes. That's where a "national list" would come into play - excessive votes (for examle one party gets 35% in your Maine example - therefore a direct vote for the state candidate at 25% + some excessive votes) from all the states would count for this national list, from which some additional Congressmen are selected, proportional to the incoming votes. The party's candidate for president would (probably) sit on top of this list.
That way, you encourage some kind of party affiliation (which is good for practical reasons - a Congress full of independends might turn chaotic and hard to negotiate with) and ensure that your vote always counts for the party you intended to vote for.

This is where the ranked voting can come into play. Obviously, were this to become law, there would have to be a method written into it. So, say that 10% is required to take the seat. Once a candidate reaches 10%, those remaining voters that have chosen that candidate could have their votes shifted to their second choice, and so on.

Now, I didn't include this in my post because this is just a mind blowing change for a lot of people, but I'd like to see a reform to political parties. I'd like to see them focusing on public policy, have their candidates hold to the platform so that you know when you vote for a party candidate, you know what they stand for. I'd like to see common people be members of political parties instead of only the political elite as it is now (because political parties here actually have no formal membership other than those that work for them). I want political parties to become more of a thing, more substantial than they are today. But, that is not what people here (not just this board) want to hear. They don't want more substantial parties even though the true problem with our parties here is that they aren't substantial enough. Hell, if the parties were more substantial it would help reduce that lobbyist influence everyone complains about.

(10-28-2016, 08:28 AM)hollodero Wrote: As for point 4 - why vote for the president directly. That comes with a lot of disadvantages. The election is focused on single persons, which opens the door for all kind of dirty attacks, possible corruption, fundraising etc. - and the risk of a "lame duck" blocked by a different Congress majority. I'd say it makes more sense to vote for Congress and let Congress determine the next president.

As I said, I waffle on this. I see pros and cons to the parliamentary system, just like our own. I think that we either need to step back and divorce the Executive more, in the manner it was intended from the beginning, or we need to incorporate it more and move to parliamentary. But right now it is this weird hybrid situation.

The reason we have a presidential system like we do is because the framers saw the role of executive as tiny. They were not envisioning the size of the federal government that we have today. They weren't envisioning a standing army, a navy with ships all around the globe on a constant basis, a diplomatic force the size of a small country, a dozen federal law enforcement agency, a network of interstate highways, etc., etc. I'm not saying it is a bad thing we have them, but our system was created without this stuff in mind. We've been trying to shove more and more authority into a role that was not intended to have it and it's created something entirely different which is inefficient and extremely problematic. Anyway, that is what I often think about when I think that we ought to move to a parliamentary system.